From: tsm@fastmail.ca
Noah Sombrero wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 01:45:12 -0000 (UTC), Tara wrote:
>
>> Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>> On Wed, 04 Feb 2026 01:02:17 +0000, Creon wrote:
>>>
>>>> At Tue, 3 Feb 2026 12:31:41 -0500, Wilson
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/2/2026 5:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 16:41:37 -0500, Wilson
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/2/2026 2:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/2/26 10:26 AM, Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2026 7:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/26 9:03 AM, Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2026 4:44 PM, Dude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2026 10:30 AM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because billionaires don't have morals, and are slave to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> chasing what they perceive as profit regardless of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect of others
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there's a reason rich people can't make it into heaven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause we can't even build heaven when rich people exist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because it's obvious that you are biased by even using the
>>>>>>>>>>>> term "rich". There's a good reason people don't want to be
>>>>>>>>>>>> equally poor.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> By global standards everyone here is rich.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If there were somehow a sudden great leveling of worldwide
>>>>>>>>>>> wealth today
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> easy to say when ur not poor
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> it would almost certainly result in the end of our
>>>>>>>>>>> civilization. Any actual progress towards the improvement of
>>>>>>>>>>> living standards has always come from innovation, which
>>>>>>>>>>> requires a degree of concentration of
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> which modern govts did best in the 20th century...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> govts fund the riskiest innovation that private investors can't
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> wealth. Long-term overall improvement has never resulted from
>>>>>>>>>>> forced redistribution.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean we shouldn't help other people who need it.
>>>>>>>>>>> It does however seem pretty obvious to me that assistance
>>>>>>>>>>> should never be from any sort of centralized coercion.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Forced redistribution is regressive and not progressive.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> capitalism is already predicated on forced distribution
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not forced to buy anything. Compare that to the property tax
>>>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> u built a house on a parcel of land and now everyone in the
>>>>>>>> entire world is just supposed to respect that because???
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> you used resources that no one produced (land, raw material) and
>>>>>>>> is therefore yours by right of violence indefinitely into the
>>>>>>>> future???
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> what is reality just a giant game of finders keepers???
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> required to pay or they take my house away. Or the income tax
>>>>>>>>> which if if not paid they take my liberty away.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> u have no problem with landlords, why in the fuck do u have a
>>>>>>>> problem with landlords submissive to democratic input???
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> it's always such a weird contradiction libertarians display: no
>>>>>>>> problem with "private" landlords, but all the problems with
>>>>>>>> "public" landlords...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All evidence points to coercive collectivists being genuine
>>>>>>>>> idiots.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> i'm arguing with submature children tbh, freaking boomernomics
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > could we get a little general decency up in this bitch???
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > #god
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Property rights are a real thing. Dispense with them and then as
>>>>>>> history repeatedly shows you get dystopia and ultimately societal
>>>>>>> collapse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are talking about rights under dictator socialism, right? There
>>>>>> are democratic socialist countries around the world that are doing
>>>>>> well enough, even better than democratic commercialism maybe. I
>>>>>> suspect few of them have dispensed with property rights, though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Finally, history does not support you attempt to draw it to your
>>>>>> cause.
>>>>>
>>>>> Property rights have been denied under monarchies and other
>>>>> authoritarian systems, not just under socialism.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the big picture I think we can agree that some ideas work better.
>>>>> And some don't work at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> When systems and structures don't line up with what works best they
>>>>> fall apart sooner than later. When they do align, they persist and
>>>>> stay strong across lifetimes.
>>>>>
>>>>> The path of discovering which is which is where the idea of natural
>>>>> law comes from. What works best is what's in harmony with the
>>>>> universe, with the state of nature.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that property rights are inherently a part of individual
>>>>> rights. What we have created by application of our life-force, our
>>>>> time, is directly connected to and intrinsically a part of our life,
>>>>> our being.
>>>>>
>>>>> The protection of personal and property rights has repeatedly been
>>>>> shown to benefit mankind over the centuries. The prosperity we
>>>>> currently enjoy is due to the implementation of systems that preserve
>>>>> and protect those rights.
>>>>>
>>>>> In systems where property was not protected, failure and societal
>>>>> destruction has repeatedly been the result. Where it's been protected
>>>>> social structures have thrived, resulting in greater prosperity and
>>>>> harmony. I cannot think of any society where this has not been the
>>>>> case.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are free to do whatever we want to do, but ignoring what works will
>>>>> lead to disharmony and then to destruction.
>>>>
>>>> "Birds have their nests, and foxes have their dens..."
>>>
>>> The nests themselves are really of no concern. It is the chicks
>>> within that they defend against predators or invaders. The same for
>>> fox pups. Nests/dens are abandoned for the next breeding cycle.
>>>
>>> Only humans think that objects matter.
>>
>>
>>
>> Tell that to the wild rabbit whose long time home is under my back yard
>> shed. She hasnt had babies for a few years. (However she does have a
>> visitor who joins her for a while in summer.)
>> Of course, Ive always just assumed my neighbour rabbit is a she. Could
>> she be a he? Naw
>
> I wonder if one of her babies hasn't taken over that haven, a boy this
> time. How long do rabbits live anyway? Maybe they value your kindly
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
